Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HARD TO SWALLOW....The Stranger reports on the latest escalation in the pharmacy wars: pharmacists who not only refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, but have refused to fill prescriptions for antibiotics and vitamins simply because they came from a women's health clinic that performs abortions. Lovely.

The only silver lining I can see to this stuff is that it presents a marketing opportunity for an aggressive pharmacy chain, which might be able to attract new business with a simple slogan: "We respect your privacy. We'll fill all your prescriptions, and we'll fill them with no hassles." I won't hold my breath waiting, though.

Via Professor B.

Kevin Drum 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (174)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I refuse to stop at red lights in Republican districts, so I guess this is fair.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

I once asked a pharmacist for some help in selecting an over-the-counter spermicide... He absolutely refused. I guess he was Catholic but I was too polite to ask him point blank.

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose on April 12, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

sounds like a good opportunity for someone to compile an online directory of meddlesome pharmacists. search your city to see who thinks their morals should come between you and your doctor's advice !

Posted by: cleek on April 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - why don't YOU set up a business like this? Who is stopping you? Oh, you'd rather sit back and whine about the way other people run their business? I see.

Posted by: Manfred Mann on April 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he thought you should be in the gardening department.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I guess he was Catholic but I was too polite to ask him point blank.

I might have tried squirting it in his face point blank, to see if I could force any sort of opinion then.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Manfred, is that you? Are you still blinded by the Right?

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he thought you should be in the gardening department.

I know; I always thought the "cide" part of "spermicide" was pretty harsh, like the little guys are innately bad or something. Of course sometimes we just don't want them traveling too much, and reasoning with them has little effect.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I once asked a pharmacist for some help in selecting an over-the-counter spermicide... He absolutely refused. I guess he was Catholic but I was too polite to ask him point blank.

Maybe he got embarassed when you asked which one tasted least bad.

I might have tried squirting it in his face point blank, to see if I could force any sort of opinion then.

Pretty fucking funny.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Do pharmacists have a code of professional ethics?

Posted by: Ron Byer on April 12, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, all this thread are belong to us!

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty fucking funny.

All fucking is funny. You just have to approach it with a positive outlook!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Do pharmacists have a code of professional ethics?

Is a pharmacist a Catholic? Does he shit in the woods? Dunno.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still waiting for a MALE pharmacists who, for religious reasons, will not dispense Viagra.

Chirp Chirp. Creeeeeek Creeeeek.

Posted by: Robert on April 12, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he got embarassed when you asked which one tasted least bad.

Bwa! And he started to answer, then abruptly looked at his shoes.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

As Tony Soprano noted last week, let's let the pharmacists start refusing to sell Viagra and see how the right-wing fanatics like it then.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still waiting for a MALE pharmacists who, for religious reasons, will not dispense Viagra.

Infidel! Do you not recognize that 18-hour woodies are a gift from God?!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

ll fucking is funny. You just have to approach it with a positive outlook!

I thought it was Kingley Amis who said something like "There is no human activity that does not look ridiculous when examined closely enough", but that nice Mr. Google is letting me down.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

It also presents an opportunity for the Congressional Democrats to have a campaign issue.

'I will vote to make sure that legal medications are dispensed without prejudice or bias'.
.

Posted by: VJ on April 12, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

I don't even want to think about why this thread is named "Hard to Swallow"....

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Infidel! Do you not recognize that 18-hour woodies are a gift from God?!

Nonsense! They are a gift from the Hot Lesbian Cheerleaders

Stefan: Yes, I was wondering that...

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Refusal to peform duties--this isn't grounds for dismissal?

Posted by: phoenixrising on April 12, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

>

I guess he was a conservative member of some religion, but no reason to assume he's Catholic. Polls consistently show that Catholics are no more anti-abortion than the public at large. Don't assume that the Vatican speaks for American Catholics. Far from true.

Posted by: Escargot555 on April 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

I thought it was Kingley Amis who said something like "There is no human activity that does not look ridiculous when examined closely enough", but that nice Mr. Google is letting me down.

Well, there's funny good and funny bad. I was referring to funny good. Just don't take Chesterton's word for on the subject. That dude did NOT get it.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

These people are barking mad. The first woman had already had an abortion, the damage was done. So the pharmacist wants to deny her antibiotics? The slut deserves a massive uterine infection, is that it?

And the second: WTF? The woman is pregnant, being responsible and getting sound prenatal care, and she's denied because....

I have to lie down now.

Posted by: hamletta on April 12, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Manfred Mann, aka Afro Thunder, aka BigRiver, aka Mountain Dan, aka Frequency Kenneth:

What is the point of all this sock puppetry? Are you trying to create the impression of an army of indignant citizens posting to this blog?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 12, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Us naive Catholics. If you didn't have emergency sex, you wouldn't need emergency contraception.

Posted by: Matt on April 12, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

There's really no sex like emergency sex. Don't, um, knock it.

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Code of Ethics for Pharmacists? -- just a google away
http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html


Posted by: Matthew on April 12, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Do pharmacists have a code of professional ethics?

No. Hell, they don't even have a real career. They're just clerks hired to dispense whatever the f*ck a proper MD has seen fit to prescribe. OK, their ONLY useful function is to double-check the prescription to make sure that the MD didn't accidently prescribe contra-indicated drugs. Other than that, their job is to hand you whatever the proper MD with an actual job and proper training and skill says is warranted, read the warnings on the label to you that you can read yourself, and keep their fat assmouth shut otherwise.

Leave the prescriptions and decisions on appropriate treatment to scientists and MDs (not the same thing). Pez Dispensers (pharmacists) have one job: dispense pez (pills). End of story.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on April 12, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Let's consider liberal logic here.

1) Women have the right to an abortion. It's hard to read Roe and Casey as anything other than judicial thuggery, but let's concede that point for now.
2) Therefore, women have the right to contraceptives and other abortion related merchandise.
3) Therefore, pharmacists are somehow obligated to sell that merchandise. A blanket decision not to stock the merchandise is unacceptable.

That logic is hopelessly broken.

Consider:

1) I have a right to freedom of expression/press
2) Therefore, the newsstand guy at the corner of sixth and congress is obligated to sell me the New York Times. A blanket decision not to stock the merchandise is unacceptable.

1) I have a right to a gun (under my state's laws)
2) Therefore, the corner store has to sell me a gun. A blanket decision not to stock the mechandise is unacceptable.

...

Posted by: FreedomFighter on April 12, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

yeh.

Wouldn't it be nice if the so-called "free markets" actually worked the way they're supposed to in the fairy tales?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on April 12, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

What is the point of all this sock puppetry?

maybe he gets paid by the alias.

Posted by: cleek on April 12, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps more states need to consider adopting the State of Illinois' policy regarding the role of pharmacists: "No hassles. No judgements. No lectures."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

On a related note... today on Air America, I heard a Walmart commercial advertising that they will take care of all the Medicare paperwork for you. Old man voice, 1930's rural music in the background - damn, it was genius.

That is the power of smart, efficient evil. Thank god we've only got stupid, incompetent evil in the White House.

Posted by: Mysticdog on April 12, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

(Sigh!) If only Vice President Cheney would misidentify a few more of his right-wing Christian friends as pen-raised and hand-fed quail on his next nature outing ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Once upon a time, the left in this country were avid supporters of the right to conscience One may disagree in any particular application, but I would like to know how many still subscribe to the very notion.

Posted by: Fitz on April 12, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

2) Therefore, women have the right to contraceptives and other abortion related merchandise.

When did anti-biotics and vitamins (for prenatal health no less) become contraceptives or abortion related merchandise. Just because of where a woman/family _chooses_ to go for health care? Some how you are mixing your talking points note cards.

Health care is really screwed up in this country from the ground up if any entity in the chain can decided to amend the discussion between the doctor and patient.

Posted by: GC on April 12, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Could this apply to non-prescription purchases, as well? (I'm thinking of someone who isn't wearing a wedding band trying to purchase condoms.) And why should only be employees of pharmacies be entitled to this clause? Why can't an employee at any store refuse to sell liquor or cigarettes or Twinkies or meat to anyone, if it violates his or her moral principles? What prevents conscience clauses from being made available to any merchant?

But if we stay inside the pharmacy, does this go beyond reproductive health? Is there a pharmacist, or a pharmacist's assistant, somewhere who has refused -- or could refuse -- to fill a prescription for somebody who's taking medication to fight AIDS-related symptoms? Are there other illnesses or conditions that might create similar scenarios? Could a Scientologist refuse to fill any prescription written by a psychiatrist, and still expect to keep his/her job? What about a prescription for methadone? I'm not sure how states articulate their conscience clauses, but it wouldn't appear that a person has to have any particular religious grounding, or has to cite any particular doctrine, in order for something like this to apply.

Just askin'.

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on April 12, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Once upon a time, the left in this country were avid supporters of the right to conscience One may disagree in any particular application, but I would like to know how many still subscribe to the very notion.
Posted by: Fitz on April 12, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe we can put pharmacists in a "free-speech zone" so they can refuse to fill prescriptions there.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on April 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

A pharmacist recently refused to sell me Sudafed. (In Illinois, Sudafed is kept behind the counter, and there is a limit on how much you can buy every month. You have to show id and sign for it.)

She was taking an awfully long time to flip through her records so I asked if I was over the monthly limit. She said no, then proceeded to ask me why I needed it. When I responded with "allergies and sinus problems," she said those weren't indications for Sudafed. (I check the box, and they are.)

When I complained that she wasn't even a doctor, she said yes, she was. (I am not even sure she was a full-fledged pharmacist.)

Then she gave me back my id, and I got it somewhere else.

Is it just me or does it seem like some pharmacists are power tripping these days?

Posted by: klem on April 12, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Donald: Perhaps more states need to consider adopting the State of Illinois' policy regarding the role of pharmacists: "No hassles. No judgements. No lectures."

Yeah! Just like our moratorium on the death penalty. So step off us, coasters, next time you feel like making a smart-mouth comment about midwestern rubes. craigie, I'm lookin' at you!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Oh come on, some of my favorite relatives are midwestern rubes!

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

(Muttering) Where's that tube...SQUIRT!

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Plus, you have mustard on your chin. Ha, ha.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me or does it seem like some pharmacists are power tripping these days?

They're just a proxy for the War on Control of Your Body. Same as smoking bans, Sunday alcohol sales, and the school drug tests.

It is all about controlling you.

Posted by: fishbane on April 12, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly, if all women waited until age 50 to have sex, there would be no need for abortions. It's all a matter of will.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on April 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Leave the prescriptions and decisions on appropriate treatment to scientists and MDs (not the same thing). Pez Dispensers (pharmacists) have one job: dispense pez (pills). End of story.

Bingo. And if they won't do their job, then they can find a new one.

Not too complicated really. It's not even about a store that doesn't have certain drugs in stock, it's simply about a few rightwing idiots refusing to do their job. They would be immediately fired from my store.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Manfred Mann - why don't YOU set up a blog to defend judgmental pharmacists? Who is stopping you? Oh, you'd rather sit back and whine about the way other people run their blogs? I see.

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on April 12, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Plus, you have mustard on your chin. Ha, ha.

Whoops! Thanks!

Posted by: craigie on April 12, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think a business has a right to stock whatever legal merchandise they want to sell. If they don't want to sell Viagra or Plan B in their store, they shouldn't have to. A gun store shouldn't be required to carry every class of gun, and a pharmacy shouldn't be required to stock every class of drug. To require a business to carry a particular inventory strikes me as Soviet economics.

If a pharmacy has decided to stock an item, they must sell it to any legal buyer: no refusing because someone isn't married or is gay.

A pharmacy can require as a condition of employment that an employee sell anything the pharmacy stocks.

Posted by: anandine on April 12, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant. Don't pipe up with the "find another job" argument either. It the choice of the business what service/product they wish to provide. The Illinois is unconstitutional, and hopefully someone will sue and get it overturned.

Posted by: Tom on April 12, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
Leave the prescriptions and decisions on appropriate treatment to scientists and MDs (not the same thing). Pez Dispensers (pharmacists) have one job: dispense pez (pills). End of story.

That's really unfair. Pharmacists do have another important job -- counselling, where needed, patients on the proper use, indications, and side effects of medicine. That's part of their job, not just dispensing the medicine.

But, you are correct to note, that deciding whether the patient should get the prescribed medicine is not part of their job.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant.

A recipient of state license that provides special privileges not available to the general public on the basis of perceived public need should be required to provide the services which justify the assessment of the existence of a public need and, therefore, the license which they have been issued.

Or they should surrender the license.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

"There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant."
Posted by: Tom

Hmmm, so you think people should be able to ban blacks from their businesses if they find being black "morally repugnant"?

Posted by: Robert on April 12, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Don't pipe up with the "find another job" argument either. It the choice of the business what service/product they wish to provide.

the "service" is, or should be (good campaign issue), to dispense all legal medications - end of story.

i don't go to a priest for medication and i don't go to a pharmacist for moral guidance.

Posted by: cleek on April 12, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

FreedomFighter-

Your analogies are way off-point. These business are licensed by the state to be able to give out prescriptions. Simple -- if they want to refuse to give out the prescriptions because of some employee's idiotic views, then they lose the licence.

Posted by: Robert on April 12, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "So step off us, coasters, next time you feel like making a smart-mouth comment about midwestern rubes."

Speaking as a former resident "coaster", I must point out to you that the good citizens of Illinois were recently given honorary "Left Coast" memberships for their recent contributions to progressive government policies.

Now, if you could just do something about reforming that Daley Machine in Chicago ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

"A recipient of state license that provides special privileges not available to the general public on the basis of perceived public need should be required to provide the services which justify the assessment of the existence of a public need and, therefore, the license which they have been issued"

So, in your view, a devout Catholic physician should be required to perform elective late-term abortions, and required to administer lethal doses of drugs to people requesting physician-assisted suicide, in states where those activities are legally permitted? You completely reject all conscience-clause exceptions, do you?

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant. Don't pipe up with the "find another job" argument either. It the choice of the business what service/product they wish to provide.

Uh, this isn't about a business refusing to provide a service, although they're perfectly free to engage in another non-pharmacy business if they choose not to dispense medication.
This is about employees, pharmacists, refusing to do their job. As you may or may not know(and based on your faulty comment, I'm guessing you don't), most states are "right to work". That means you can be fired or quit for any reason.

In this situation, I'd say that refusing to perform your one and only job duty is a pretty good reason to fire you.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

klem (above):

Whuh? I'm interested in hearing more about this. Did the pharmacist think you were making meth?

(I live in Oklahoma, where we have the same law: medicines containing pseudoephedrine must be purchased from a pharmacist, and all purchases are tracked.)

What did she think the Sudafed was for, if not allergies and sinus problems?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 12, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

So, in your view, a devout Catholic physician...

Oh, hush, Don P.

Donald: Yes, don't get me started on the Daley machine...those thugs make my blood boil.

But I do want to point out that we've made more than "recent" contributions to progressive policies, although our performance of late has been especially exemplary.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Once upon a time, the left in this country were avid supporters of the right to conscience One may disagree in any particular application, but I would like to know how many still subscribe to the very notion.

Good lord, you are a fucking moron. The right to conscience involves accepting the consequence of your actions. The left in this country faced arrest for their protests and acts of conscience. Hell, so has the right. These assholes don't want a "right to conscience". They want a "right to conscience without consequences." These people aren't moral, they're pussies who are afraid to do what they think is right unless they can be sure it's not going to have any negative consequences.

If you have a moral objection to fulfilling your job duties, either quit, or don't go into that line of business. If you're a vegetarian, don't go to work at a meat packing plant and demand the right to refuse to prepare meat.

Posted by: Vladi G on April 12, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Er...my "we" referred to Illinois, not particularly to Chicago.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz: "Once upon a time, the left in this country were avid supporters of the 'right to conscience'. One may disagree in any particular application, but I would like to know how many still subscribe to the very notion."

And once upon a time, the right in this country was actually concerned with understanding and enforcing the concept of ethical conduct in public life.

Look, Americans have the right to believe in whatever they want. However, any pharmacist harboring such a "right of conscience" as you imply about a women's right to reproductive freedom needs to do the honorable thing, i.e., quit the profession and find another career that won't impugn his or her "moral values."

Your "Right of Conscience" does not infer a right to unilaterally impose your personal moral code or religious doctrine upon others with impunity.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

If you're a vegetarian, don't go to work at a meat packing plant and demand the right to refuse to prepare meat.

Bingo, again.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty fucking funny.

All fucking is funny. You just have to approach it with a positive outlook! Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well said. But not all fucking is pretty.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on April 12, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's called a boycott--have none of you ever heard of it?

(A proper boycott is refusing to acknowledge the existence of the person boycotted, not just not buying from them. It's very effective if you can manage it--look at Huntingdon).

Posted by: SamChevre on April 12, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Here on the oncology floor the pharmacist's play a critical role. Dosing patients with impaired kidney and liver function with high dose antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, immunosuppressants, neuroleptics, etc. is a serious art. The doctors orchestrate -- but the pharmacists are reading all the charts, requesting specific tests, deciding doses, advising for discontinuation and intiation of drug treatments, etc.

The Rite-Aid pharmacist however can be a dickweed, part moralist part, part DEA deputy.

BTW when are they going to make Allegra OTC? Drug manufacturers sure are getting their money's worth from this administration. In the meantime, keep your eye out for meth manufacturers and heavy equipment operators.

Posted by: toast on April 12, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "Er...my 'we' referred to Illinois, not particularly to Chicago."

The city of Chicago is the economic engine that drives Illinois. Further, the greater Chicagoland metropolitan area accounts for almost two-thirds of the state's population.

You guys would be nothing but a bunch of rubes without Chicago. ;-)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Now, if you could just do something about reforming that Daley Machine in Chicago ... Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM

We've been trying for the last 100 years or so. It ain't easy.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 12, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. to shortstop: My father was from Illinois, I have a lot of family throughout the northeast part of the state (Lake, Cook, Kane and McHenry counties), and last but not least, I'm a die-hard Cubs and Bears fan -- of course, we die hard every year, but that's beside the point ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Donald, thanks for explaining my state to me in completely condescending terms.

I am a Chicagoan. And I think you've missed my point, which was that the Daley machine, while solidly Democratic, is not overly progressive.

And you're being really fucking rude.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Dr. Morpheus: "We've been trying [to reform Chicago politics] for the last 100 years or so. It ain't easy."

Nothing truly worthwhile ever is. But you almost did it in the 1980s with the late Mayor Harold Washington. This time, try to find an honest mayoral candidate who doesn't have one foot on the proverbial banana peel ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Morph, where (generally speaking) do you live?

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

I urge everyone to call Governor Rounds office in South Dakota and tell the person who answers, that until the South Dakota legislature repeals the abortion ban you will not go see Mount Rushmore, nor will you do business with any company in South Dakota.

Then join the campaign for progressive legislation. http://www.boycott-republicans.com
The Republican Party appears vulnerable and weak at the cash registers of the companies that give money to them. Make legislative demands of these companies that give money to the Republican party and boycott them until the CEO of the company gets the Republican party to pass a progressive agenda.


I also urge people in South Dakota to call their local Dominos Pizza restaurant and tell the manager that they will not patronize their business until they get their CEO to call upon the SD legislature and get the legislature to repeal the abortion ban.

Posted by: mighty maximus on April 12, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK
So, in your view, a devout Catholic physician should be required to perform elective late-term abortions, and required to administer lethal doses of drugs to people requesting physician-assisted suicide, in states where those activities are legally permitted?

I don't think it would be an categorically improper for a state to require that, though I don't think that that assumption is fundamental in the policy considerations involved the way they are for pharmacy. OTOH, for example, a devotedly "pro-life" ER doctor that refused to provide emergency contraception to rape victims (including inter alia a devout Catholic who refused to do so where the law required it but there was some basis to believe fertilization had occurred and the procedure would, therefore, be abortifacient rather than contraceptive in the understanding of the doctor's moral code) ought to surrender the privilege of the medical license.

This is not to express a moral judgement on the correctness of such a decision; legitimate civil disobedience is not categorically consequence-free. If the existing law on when such treatment is allowed and/or required to be provided, the law should be changed. However, person's licensed by the state and granted special privileges to serve a publicly-determined need should not have the additional privilege of opting out of meeting that need, where it has been determined to be critical.

Now, one can argue that, for policy reasons related to maximizing the ability to meet the need, allowing conscience-clause "opt-out" where the burden is truly negligible is a good policy choice, and I agree. So, where another doctor present at the same facility will provide the service without substantial delay or, in the pharmacy case, where another pharmacist present at the same time in the same pharmacy will provide the medication and counseling, etc., having an "opt-out" allowance is, at least arguably, in the public interest.

Where the burden of opting out becomes significant enough that it undermines the public purpose of the license is a policy judgement that will vary from service to service.

You completely reject all conscience-clause exceptions, do you?

I categorically reject any broad natural entitlement to conscience clause exceptions for public employees or publicly-licensed professionals; there may be circumstances where it is not inconsistent with, or even is beneficial for, the public purpose of the particular employment or licensing scheme to allow such exceptions, and certainly where that is the case, it is not categorically inappropriate to allow them.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Let's consider conservative illogic. FF wrote:

Let's consider liberal logic here.

1) Women have the right to an abortion [snip editorializing]
2) Therefore, women have the right to contraceptives and other abortion related merchandise.
3) Therefore, pharmacists are somehow obligated to sell that merchandise. A blanket decision not to stock the merchandise is unacceptable.

That logic is hopelessly broken.

Consider:

1) I have a right to freedom of expression/press
2) Therefore, the newsstand guy at the corner of sixth and congress is obligated to sell me the New York Times. A blanket decision not to stock the merchandise is unacceptable.

1) I have a right to a gun (under my state's laws)
2) Therefore, the corner store has to sell me a gun. A blanket decision not to stock the mechandise is unacceptable.

Freedom Fighter, the only thing hopelessly broken here is your ability to reason. Perhaps you should go back to 5th grade and re-learn the principals of basic logic. Or perhaps you should go back to 1st grade and learn how to read. If you're going to draw an analogy, that analogy ought to relate back to the issue at hand. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind.

Your analogies fail because no one is complaining about pharmacies not stocking certain drugs. In other words, this ain't about the convenient "blanket decision" to not stock an item that you keep invoking. No, instead, this is about pharmacists deciding to refuse to sell something on the basis of a person's status or, even worse, their percieved status. Moreover, the thing they are selling is a)legal, b) approved by the FDA, and c)related to a constitutionally protected right. Thus, pharmacists are effectively denying individuals the ability to freely exercise their constitutional rights based on mere perception concerning a customer's "status".

So let's re-imagine your analogies and make them mirror what is occurring in certain pharmacies:

1. Freedom Fighter has a right to freedom of expression/press (let's ignore that purchasing a newspaper is not actually a constitutionally protected expression).
2. The news stand guy at the corner of sixth and congress stocks and sells the New York Times.
3. The news stand guy decides that FF is a dumbfuck.
4. The news stand guy is morally opposed to dumb fucks.
5. The news stand guy refuses to sell FF the paper.

OR

1. Freedom Fighter has a right to a gun (under Texas law)
2. Just Guns stocks and sells guns.
3. The guys at Just Guns decides Freedom Fighter is a short-sighted retard.
4. The guys at Just Guns are morally opposed to short-sighted retards.
5. The guys at Just Guns refuse to sell FF a gun.

The problem is obvious. The businesses in question are not refusing to stock something; rather, they're refusing to sell something to a person because they conclude that person is of a status they morally oppose. As noted above, change the descriptor to "black", and you describe a situation that our society nearly universally opposes.

Freedom Fighter, don't be a pussy. If you want to allow businesses to discriminate against customers, just say it. Don't try and employ logic you can't handle. We all know you're just a fucktard conservative anyway, and it won't surprise or shock us. If you just say, "I hate woman, I think pharmacists should be permitted to discrminate against them as they please." you won't have to put any more stress on your flaccid and debilitated logic gland...

Cheers!

Posted by: Seamus on April 12, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

klem, many pharmacists have PhDs, ie, they're doctors.

Fitz, I agree about the "right to conscience". If a pharmacist does not want to dispense meds based on their conscience, then they have the right to find another career.

Posted by: Disputo on April 12, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant.

Pharmacies are not like any private business -- they are specially licensed by the state as a condition of doing business, just as for example doctors and lawyers are. They can refuse to provide their services, but then the state should similarly refuse to provide them with a license anymore, leaving them free to pursue employment more in line with their ethical principles.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

That's really unfair. Pharmacists do have another important job -- counselling, where needed, patients on the proper use, indications, and side effects of medicine. That's part of their job, not just dispensing the medicine.

That's the part where they read me what was printed on their label printer that they slapped on the bottle, right?

Posted by: Oneiros Dreaming on April 12, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "Donald, thanks for explaining my state to me in completely condescending terms."

You're welcome.

"I am a Chicagoan. And I think you've missed my point, which was that the Daley machine, while solidly Democratic, is not overly progressive."

If you wanted to make that point, then you should have clearly stated it. For all I knew from your previous posts here, you could well have been from downstate Carbondale.

Look, Chicago's a great city -- certainly more so than the mid-Pacific political backwater I currently call home. Be proud of it, and fight like hell to change its politics for the better. Mayor Washington showed progressive Democrats not only that it can be done, but also how to do it.

"And you're being really fucking rude."

Now you're sounding just like my Hawaii Republican friends. Aloha. ;-)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 12, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Tom opined:
There is no way a pharmacy, or any private business, should be compelled to provide a service they find morally repugnant. Don't pipe up with the "find another job" argument either. It the choice of the business what service/product they wish to provide.

Tom, I know it's hard to understand, but the pharmacists in question aren't being compelled to do something they find morally repugnant. Pharmacists do one thing: they dispense drugs. That they do it every day without complaint means they don't find it morally repugnant. That they refuse to do it for woman who have had an abortion or who need the morning after pill means that they find the status of those women morally repugnant. And that, dear Tom, has nothing to do with being a pharmacist or dispensing drugs.

If the state gives a license, they can take the license away. And if the state wants to take the license away from pharmacists who refuse to treat or serve people they find "morally repugnant", than it is free to do so.

Cheers!

Posted by: Seamus on April 12, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

If you wanted to make that point, then you should have clearly stated it.

I absolutely could have stated it more clearly than I did. Mea culpa on that one.

For all I knew from your previous posts here, you could well have been from downstate Carbondale.

That's just it, isn't it? You don't know what you're talking about, and yet you keep talking, digging yourself deeper.

Be proud of it

Thanks for the patronizing pep talk. Whoever said I wasn't? Assuming that criticism of political officials equals lack of civic pride--now that's a leap of logic worthy of our friends the defend-Bush-or-you-hate-America crowd.

I get it, Donald. Unearned (on your part) condescension is your regular mode and you just can't turn it off. We're done here.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
That's the part where they read me what was printed on their label printer that they slapped on the bottle, right?

Good pharmacists will ask you questions about your particular circumstances when you have a new drug and highlight the factors that are particularly important for you to note, this is a valuable and important part of their job.

Not that all drug-store pharmacists, in my opinion, are good pharmacists.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK
klem, many pharmacists have PhDs, ie, they're doctors.

More usually, aren't they PharmDs, not PhDs?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

klem, many pharmacists have PhDs, ie, they're doctors.

When the average person asks if you're a doctor, everyone knows that they're talking about an MD.

I'm a JD(Juris Doctor), but I don't go around telling people I'm a doctor. At any rate, even if that pharmacist was a PhD, it still doesn't give her the right to substitute her judgment for that of the patient's doctor.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Was there a class in Pharmacy school that these "refuseniks" missed? The fact that they chose to be a pharmacist and hold themselves out as such,should lead one to conclude that walking into (or driving up to) the store, carefully noting the sign that says Pharmacy,and then arriving at the counter is the extent of research needed as to whether the prescription in hand can be filled.
If they want to follow their conscience,let them note on the sign outside that this is a limited Pharmacy (Pharmacy-lite) which prefers not to deal with sexually active women unless they can show proof of menopause. Let them make that sign bold enough to be observed at some distance with proper illumination at night.Preferably in neon,that should allow them plenty of time to contemplate their righteousness,alone.

Posted by: TJM on April 12, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ringo: I'm a JD(Juris Doctor), but I don't go around telling people I'm a doctor.

You would if you were Nathan. Sorry! Couldn't resist.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well, maybe women would be more responsive when I ask them to take off their clothes.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Just tell them you've got some scales of justice that need balancing in the worst way.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK
I'm a JD(Juris Doctor), but I don't go around telling people I'm a doctor.

Since JD and MD degrees are both, historically, professional bachelor's degrees whose respective professions decided they wanted the status held by PhDs, that's probably sensible.

Of course, that raises the question of why many insist that physicians are uniquely entitled to the style "doctor"...

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin has it exactly right. Discriminatory policies can only hurt providers in a free market. There's no need for statutory intervention. Support whoever you consider to be an ethical provider by shopping there.

Posted by: VRWC on April 12, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

You would if you were Nathan. Sorry! Couldn't resist.

Man, I was just on the point of making that same joke when I saw you'd beat me to it.

Posted by: Stefan on April 12, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, ha! Well, to tie it all back to pharmacies, you can always tell wimmin, "I may be a lawyer. But I'm also Dr. Shampoo Bottle, baby."

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, that raises the question of why many insist that physicians are uniquely entitled to the style "doctor"...

Well, I don't think that they are, but for whatever reasons, it's just become the common usage. When someone tells you that they have a doctor's appointment, you probably don't think that they're having lunch with a PhD in Brazilian History.

OTOH, I don't think it's particularly unusual for PhDs to be addressed as "doctor", especially in an academic setting--but when someone asks if you're a doctor, it just seems that common usage would tell you that you should clarify whether you're an MD or PhD.

Posted by: Ringo on April 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

FreedomFighter wrote: 2) Therefore, women have the right to contraceptives and other abortion related merchandise.

Contraceptives are not "abortion related merchandise", you dumbass.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 12, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

cmdiceley, there is a heap of confusion about the way emergency contraception (plan B) works. PZ Myers just schooled me on this the other day, and my new understanding is that, in spite of what we hear, it doesn't appear to have any effect on a fertilized egg or its ability to implant.

In a nutshell, ec works exclusively by delaying ovulation. If you've already popped an egg, ec isn't going to affect the process--you're going to get pregnant or not get pregnant the same way you would if you'd had unprotected sex without taking ec. For awhile it was hypothesized that because ec caused changes in the uterine lining that it might prevent implantation. There was apparently some animal evidence that this may happen, although I couldn't find it (this is best I could find). But recent studies, including one done in humans, show no evidence for a post-fertilization effect. In bold, there's no evidence emergency contraception prevents implantation--in fact, there is now evidence to the contrary. The stat I found most compelling was that the rate at which plan B successfully delayed ovulation was the exact same rate as its efficacy in preventing pregnancy.

Incidentally, there is no debate over the fact that that e.c. will not cause a woman to lose an established (implanted) pregnancy.

Now, I hasten to say that nothing in biology is impossible. I would never say that immaculate conceptions is impossible, becuase I'll bet at some point in human history two eggs have collided and in spite of all the reasons why it shouldn't work, it does. So, while cautioning that you can never say never, I think inasmuch as you can ever say never, you can safely say ec never stops implantation.

Posted by: theorajones on April 12, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop:
You're usually bright and cheery, so what's the source of your ire toward Donald?

You were unclear, and he pointed it out. So? He mentioned that greater Chicago includes most of the people in Illinois, making the desire to claim credit for Illinois achievements while distancing oneself from Chicago a little bit problematic. So? He even put a smiley emoticon at the end of his little speech. So chill out!

No one likes to admit to error, or even misstatement, but you might leave it at "mea culpa" and avoid attacking the messenger. After all, "Sorry, I was unclear" is always more pleasant than "I was unclear, but you're a jerk for pointing it out."

Posted by: keith on April 12, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

You should become a politician. You are as evasive as any I've ever seen.

"I don't think .... [blah blah blah blah] .... from service to service"

So is that a "Yes, I think doctors should be required to perform elective late-term abortions and inject lethal drugs where those procedures are permitted by law" or a "No, I do not?"

"I categorically reject any broad natural entitlement to .... [blah blah blah blah] .... it is not categorically inappropriate to allow them."

So is that a "Yes, I completely reject all conscience-clause exceptions," or a "No, I do not?"

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK
cmdiceley, there is a heap of confusion about the way emergency contraception (plan B) works. PZ Myers just schooled me on this the other day, and my new understanding is that, in spite of what we hear, it doesn't appear to have any effect on a fertilized egg or its ability to implant.

I was certainly aware that this effect was, at least, disputed, nevertheless, the official stance of the Catholic Church regarding the practice hasn't, best I know, caught up to the understanding you present, and, anyhow, the use of the example was for illustration purposes regarding the kinds of moral objection should not be allowed to license denial of service, not to make specific claims about the factual functioning of emergency contraception.

That being said, that information (of which I was not previously aware) is interesting, so thank you for presenting it.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK
You should become a politician.

That may yet occur.

You are as evasive as any I've ever seen.

I strive for clarity with completeness, rather than evasion.

So is that a "Yes, I completely reject all conscience-clause exceptions," or a "No, I do not?"

That depends on what you mean by the question.

If you mean "Do you think that there is an inherent right for public employees or licensees with special privileges to opt out, for moral reasons, of providing the services for the purposes for which that employment or those privileges are given?" then the answer is "Yes".

If you mean "Do you reject as desirable all policies which allow, in certain circumstances, such employees or licensees to opt out, for moral purposes, of providing such services?" the answer is "No".

I thought the prior response made that clear as well as illustrating the kind of concerns that would go in to determining, in the latter case, where such exceptions were desirable, but perhaps I gave you too much credit.

If you mean something else, you'll have to be more specific about what you mean before I can answer your question.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats might want to raise the profile on this issue.

Blagojevich (Gov. of Illinois) could be 10 times as corrupt as Daley (Mayor of Chicago), it still wouldn't diminish my gratitude for defending women's reproductive rights.

BTW, our trolls never seem to consider that some people live in rural areas where getting to one pharmacy may be a hassle, let alone trying to shop around. What if you had to take a drug and the pharmacist on duty refused to sell it to you - because you're the wrong religion and deserve to suffer? [more crickets chirping]. But oh yeah, you guys can't even put yourselves in someone else's shoes, not for one second.

Posted by: Librul on April 12, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

"So, while cautioning that you can never say never, I think inasmuch as you can ever say never, you can safely say ec never stops implantation."

No, you most definitely cannot say that. There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating that EC never works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Plan B's own manufacturer states that the drug may act by preventing implantation, as does Princeton University's EC information center and other reputable sources.

Posted by: BDozen on April 12, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Do you think a devout Catholic physician should be required to perform elective late-term abortions, and required to administer lethal doses of drugs to people requesting physician-assisted suicide, in states where those activities are legally permitted?

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

"If you mean "Do you think that there is an inherent right for public employees or licensees with special privileges to opt out, for moral reasons, of providing the services for the purposes for which that employment or those privileges are given?" then the answer is "Yes"."

So you do in fact believe that pharmacists have an inherent right to opt out, for moral reasons, of providing the service of dispensing emergency contraception. Thanks for (finally) saying so.

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK
Do you think a devout Catholic physician should be required to perform elective late-term abortions, and required to administer lethal doses of drugs to people requesting physician-assisted suicide, in states where those activities are legally permitted?

I don't think any doctor should be required to perform any procedure they don't believe is medically necessary. Nor are all doctors the most appropriate providers of every medical service, even within the scope of what they are legally permitted to do. Consequently, no, I don't think that performing those specific procedures you ask about should be mandatory for all doctors, regardless of whether they are "devoutly Catholic".

This is quite different from the situation pharmacists are in.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 12, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

I THOUGHT THE B-BOOMERS AND X-ERS WERE STILL USING PLASTIC WRAP.

Posted by: OLD TIMER on April 12, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

"never seem to consider that some people live in rural areas where getting to one pharmacy may be a hassle, let alone trying to shop around."

Suppose the sole pharmacist serving a rural community is suddenly told that he must dispense emergency contraception, in violation of his deeply-held moral beliefs, or he will be fired. He decides to quit rather than be forced to violate his conscience. He's been working there for 20 years, and knows all the local people and is intimately acquainted with their health problems and prescription drug needs. Finding a replacement proves impossible.

You really want to sacrifice the health of that community on the altar of your political correctness, do you?

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,
"I don't think any doctor should be required to perform any procedure they don't believe is medically necessary."

You're contradicting yourself. You previously said:

"A recipient of state license [check] that provides special privileges not available to the general public [check] on the basis of perceived public need [check] should be required to provide the services which justify the assessment of the existence of a public need and, therefore, the license which they have been issued [check]."

So which is it?


Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

You really want to sacrifice the health of that community on the altar of your political correctness, do you?

Meanwhile, an uninsured member of said community comes down with a supervirus. Unwilling to see a doctor (lacking insurance), they spread supervirus germs all over the neighborhood.

But, hey, its perfectly alright to sacrifice the health of a community on the altar of the free market, right?

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on April 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hi, keith.

You're usually bright and cheery...

Usually, with marked exceptions.

...so what's the source of your ire toward Donald?

Not sure what the two clauses of this sentence have to do with each other, but I should have thought it fairly obvious that the source of my ire toward Donald is...Donald.

...making the desire to claim credit for Illinois achievements while distancing oneself from Chicago a little bit problematic.

I have zero "desire to distance myself from Chicago." If that's what others besides you are taking away from my posts, I've dropped the ball more badly than I thought.

Let me try to explain and move on, because I doubt all of this is of lingering interest to anyone, and I really did botch it before: Illinois' political behavior as a state has been quite decently blue, and not only recently, although Donald may not have picked up on it until lately.

Chicago's machine is horrifyingly corrupt (Go, Fitz! Keep takin' 'em down), and not particularly progressive by my own standards. (I strongly desire and am working toward its end--another story.) It is, however, reliably Democratic and the source of most of Illinois' votes.

But Chicago is not wholly responsible for the progressive successes of the past several years, including the ones being discussed here. Chicago alone could not have elected Governor Blagojevich, who took leadership on the pharmacy issue; nor could it have elected Barack Obama by such an enormous margin. Both the collar counties--formerly Republican strongholds, now increasingly blue--and the downstate farm and mining communities showed very strong support for Obama, and pretty solid backing for Blago.

George Ryan, the former governor who zapped the death penalty pending a serious look at the system, was, of course, a Republican. (And a corrupt creep himself, but that's another story.)

At this point, the formerly mighty Illinois GOP is in complete disarray. We have one--one--statewide office held by a Republican, and she's going to lose her upcoming bid for governor. Probably not by much, but she will lose.

All of this is pretty basic stuff to anyone with a contemporary and more than sketchy familiarity with Illinois politics. And I should have said it all to begin with. Again, mea culpa for not doing so.

After all, "Sorry, I was unclear" is always more pleasant than "I was unclear, but you're a jerk for pointing it out."

Sometimes, keith, "pleasantness" is not the sole or even the overriding consideration in conversation, even among those of us from whom others apparently expect "brightness" and "cheeriness."

I've been corrected many times on this blog, and freely admitted my own mistakes often as well. This is not a case of blaming the messenger for the message. But I did and do take great exception the messenger's patronizing tone, beginning with his very first comment. You're correct in paraphrasing my response as "Hey, you're a jerk," but you're wrong to assume that his pointing out my lack of clarity was what rankled me. I wish you wouldn't conflate those two aspects of the conversation.

That's enough--way, way more than enough--from me on this topic.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why there are no suits charging the pharmacists with practicing medicine without a license.

Posted by: focus on April 12, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely (I'll stop affectionately calling you Dice, since the Americanist has coopted it): That being said, that information (of which I was not previously aware) is interesting, so thank you for presenting it.

Nads, whose handle evidently is professionally accurate, is our resident expert on this subject. Perhaps he'll stop by.

Posted by: shortstop on April 12, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Here in KY, the General Assembly has been scandalized for funding a Pharmacy Department building for a conservative Christian college, "University of the Cumberlands," that recently expelled a student for admitting he was gay.

I can't help but wonder if a new tactic of the Christian right is to crank out pharmacists of its ilk who are prepared, as a matter of "conscience," to deny treatments related to birth control, prevention of sexually transmitted disease, etc.

Any other readers have similar stories?

Posted by: Bruce on April 12, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

jibjab,

Since you seem to be in favor of allowing pharmacists to choose what drugs they dispense, let's flip your question around. Conceding that not forcing doctors to performs abortions is an exception to the "no conscience clause argument," where would you draw the line? Why do conservative religious folks get special status, and communists or environmentalists don't? Can a liberal pharmacist refuse to sell you a drug from a company he or she feels is immoral? Why not?

Posted by: go vols on April 12, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Conceding that not forcing doctors to performs abortions is an exception to the "no conscience clause argument," where would you draw the line?"

On the basis of a reasonable accommodation standard. I do not think it's just to require a pharmacist to dispense emergency contraception in violation of his conscience if there's some reasonable alternative way of serving the customer's needs or wishes.

Posted by: jibjab on April 12, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't think any doctor should be required to perform any procedure they don't believe is medically necessary."

So you don't believe any doctor should be required to prescribe emergency contraception (unless he believes it is medically necessary). So why should a pharmacist be required to dispense it? Finding a doctor willing to prescribe EC may be a bigger obstacle than finding a pharmacist willing to dispense it.

Posted by: seamus on April 12, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan

Pharmacies are not like any private business -- they are specially licensed by the state as a condition of doing business, just as for example doctors and lawyers are. They can refuse to provide their services, but then the state should similarly refuse to provide them with a license anymore,

So if a lawyer refuses to take your case the state should be allowed to disbar him?

I guess that's one way of getting rid of all the lawyers.

Posted by: Melting Pot on April 12, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

I saw him play a few rounds and all I could think was "Timmay!!!! .... Timmay!!!" Seriously, what a tard.

Posted by: toast on April 12, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

oops wrong thread. I'm such a boner sometimes.

Posted by: toast on April 12, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

This issue is being settled on a state- by- state basis. Several states have already passed laws that require pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense EC, or lose their licenses; other states are trying to pass laws protecting the pharmacists' right to refuse to prescribe EC. So unless you have lobbied yout state government, or better yet, introduced legistlation regarding this topic, your opinion won't affect anything.
BTW, if JD's went around calling themselves "Doctors," they'd start suing each other.

Posted by: gyp on April 12, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Gyp is a racial slur. Aw, shit. Now I'M on the wrong thread.

Posted by: Pat on April 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

alek: I clearly was not over the limit and she admitted that. I am not really sure why she didn't want to sell to me--perhaps she felt my obviously runny nose was a sign of meth addiction?

This same employee questioned me about my purchase of cold medicine for my daughter a few months ago. And other parents have told me about getting the third degree or being denied when trying to purchase meds for their kids. But I really have no idea what this person's problem was.

Posted by: klem on April 12, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: I am well aware that SOME pharmacists are doctors. But most of those aren't working at Walgreen's. (And a call to the store manager confirmed that she was not a doctor.)

More importantly, she wasn't MY doctor.

Posted by: klem on April 12, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I dig the title. Heh.

Posted by: bago on April 12, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Pat, my initials are gyp. However, my one interaction with gypsies was 1000% negative.

Posted by: gyp on April 13, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, shortstop -- why don't you save your ire for the GOP and the Daley Machine, and stop taking unwarranted potshots at people who are clearly on your own side?

What Donald from Hawaii said to you about rubes in Illinois was tongue-in-cheek -- or did you not understand what ";-)" meant in his posts?

All you managed to prove with your use of profanity toward him was that you have a great big chip on your shoulder -- and a very unattractive one, at that. You deserved that sarcastic final reponse he gave you before signing off.

Lighten up, dude, and don't be so quick to take offense for something that you alone misunderstood. You're the one who looks foolish.

Posted by: Circular Firing Squad on April 13, 2006 at 4:44 AM | PERMALINK

Circ,

I subscribe to the theory that if you're arguing with one person it's a disagreement; if three or four or five people (who aren't Republican or otherwise of unsound mind) all tell you you're being an asshole, you're way off that day and you're being an asshole.

It would seem that I'm unable to see this conversation in its true light. So before I actually get to three people, I'll offer an apology to Donald.

I'm sorry for treating you unfairly, Donald.

Posted by: shortstop on April 13, 2006 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK

So ... since no-one else has seen fit to correct Freedom Fighter's mis-apprehensions regarding contraception, I guess I'll take a stab at it.

2) Therefore, women have the right to contraceptives and other abortion related merchandise.

Where to start?
Well, there's no therefore - the right to abortion and right to access to contraception don't flow in that direction. CT v Griswold - decided years before Roe V Wade - established a right to have access to contraception with a basis in personal privacy.
One could argue that the decision in Roe was an evolution of the privacy right established by Griswold.

Contraception and abortion are far from the same thing which FF should well know.
Contra - ception sounds like it might be the opposite of con - ception. If I recall correctly, one must be pregant before one can have an abortion ... so one could argue that contraceptives serve to prevent abortions.

Posted by: kenga on April 13, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

You really want to sacrifice the health of that community on the altar of your political correctness, do you?

you know that i'm sick of? i'm tired of all the pity, sympathy, and *concern* for those poor business people and pharmacists and their tender, rice paper little souls. when are you free-market cheer-leading fucktards going to have ANYTHING to say about women who are denied access to a commonly prescribed medication that is part of their BASIC health care needs?

these policies are essentially gender discrimination. women should have a reasonable expectation of being served equally at a place of business that serves the public. i am fucking tired of hearing about the 'right' of pharmacists to be judgmental, moralistic fuckwits by denying women an equal level of service. fuck that, and fuck any of you who support that. i hope your mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters disown your bigoted, back-stabbing worthless asses.

free market you say? since when is a market free when half the population isn't being allowed to freely participate in it? oh yeah, i get it. they can 'shop' around in the free free free-as-a-bird market full of sanctimonious panty-sniffing perverts who will refuse to deliver the same level of service their do to their male customers. i can't believe we're even dicussing this like there is even a modicum of ethical justification for treating women like they are second class citizens.

conscious-class supporters:

please. please find a state where i don't live, take it over, and secede. i'm sick and tired of having to fight tooth and nail just to be treated like an equal member of society. i, as a woman, have every right that any man does to be free of harassment over my private behavior and the measures i take to make that behavior safe and satisfying for ME.


Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if we have any hope of forcing wingnut pharmacists to stop using their counter as a pulpit.

But isn't there some kind of pharmacy board that could strip a pharmacist of his license by acting in a manner inconsistent with his job (dispensing prescribed medicine in a private and secure manner)?

Posted by: keptsimple on April 13, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

spacebaby,

You is craaaaaazy lady!

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

My local health food store won't sell Newman's Own Organics because Newman gives charity to Planned Parenthood, along with thousands of other charities.

Posted by: Pandu on April 13, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

"If you have a moral objection to fulfilling your job duties, either quit, or don't go into that line of business. If you're a vegetarian, don't go to work at a meat packing plant and demand the right to refuse to prepare meat."

I worked in a big health food store about 10 years ago, and after a while the store opened up a deli. My religion does not permit me to support animal slaughter or meat eating. Not only did the owner refuse to allow me to avoid handling meat at the cash register (I mostly worked in the vitamin/herb aisle, but sometimes covered the register), but he also required that I promote the meat with flyers. My only option was to quit. I was also denied unemployment, although I recently learned that it should've been granted.

Posted by: Pandu on April 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

crazy? exactly what is crazy about my post? i'm tired of justifiable anger in response to discriminatory policies being called 'crazy'. it's not crazy. it's normal.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I am a pharmacist and I have to say that I have no problem filling Plan-B or any other prescription for that matter. I find it reprehensible that other pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions based on their own beliefs. That being said, the pharmacist bashing being done because of a few wingnuts is not cool.

I would like to stand up for my profession and say that most of us don't refuse to fill prescriptions unless they will hurt you. Also while there are some pharmacists who just dispense pills, even the pharmacists that work at the chains do other things besides that. We help people with OTC meds, talk to people about their medicine, deal with insurance claims and disputes etc. Heck last week I was calling a patient to make sure she was OK over the weekend while her husband was away because he was worried about her.

I just wanted to say not all pharmacists are dicks.

Posted by: goodrph on April 13, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, you are anything but normal.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby, you are anything but normal.

define 'normal'. did you perhaps have anything related to the topic of the thread or is this just going to devolve into, "omigod, she's angry so she must be crazy, she is teh suxxor!" no? didn't think so.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

"define 'normal'."

The opposite of spacebaby.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

A CALL TO ALL FEMALE PHARMASISTS
the over-use of viagra can be detrimental to many relationships, I say if you have a problem with that - REFUSE to fill perscriptions. Tit for tat. We'll see how long pharmasists are allowed to make these decisions!

Posted by: mookie on April 13, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Check out what's going on at many left leaning blogs at www.leftyblogs.com


I urge everyone to call Governor Rounds office in South Dakota and tell the person who answers, that until the South Dakota legislature repeals the abortion ban you will not go see Mount Rushmore, nor will you do business with any company in South Dakota.

Then join the campaign for progressive legislation. http://www.boycott-republicans.com

The Republican Party appears vulnerable and weak at the cash registers of the companies that give money to them. Make legislative demands of these companies that give money to the Republican party and boycott them until the CEO of the company gets the Republican party to pass a progressive agenda.

I also urge people in South Dakota to call their local Dominos Pizza restaurant and tell the manager that they will not patronize their business until they get their CEO to call upon the SD legislature and get the legislature to repeal the abortion ban.



Join the campaign for progressive legislation http://www.boycott-republicans.com


I seek activist volunteers to pass this letter around for a project that will force the speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to enact progressive legislation. I also seek volunteer activists to do this project to force Senator Frist to enact progressive legislation.

If you want to send me email please place the word PRIVATE in the subject or it will not reach me. Thank you.


Send the following letter to Speaker Hastert and Senator Frist. After you send them email or US mail drop me an email that you sent them email so I can keep track of how many emails and letters they receive, thank you.


Pass this progressive agenda or face a mass boycott of Republican contributors.


I demand that you get the Republican Party to hold a press conference and accede to these demands. Until such a press conference happens and the legislation and/or actions gets passed I will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy's, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil.

I demand that congress pass legislation ending the war in Iraq and withdraw the troops and arrange with the United Nations to replace US troops with UN troops to defend Iraq until The Iraqi army can defend Iraq.

I demand that the Republican party end their aggressive and hateful action to end a woman's right to choose abortion or not.

I demand that the Congress of the United states and the president of the United States enact a law to increase the minimum wage to TEN dollars an hour and also to extend unemployment benefits to a year or more for all people whose unemployment benefits expired after 6 months even though they still seek work.

I demand that the Congress of the United States to not privatize social security benefits in any form including taking a percentage of the social security tax and placing it in private accounts. People can already create their own pensions with money after taxes in the private sector.

I demand that the congress make all of a person's earned income taxable for social security FICA tax purposes and remove the 88,000 dollar taxable income limit. This will make social security solvent for many years to come.

I demand the congress increase the payroll tax in order to make social security solvent as well.

I demand congress and the president enact a prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part B which covers 80 percent of medication cost, with no extra premium, no extra deductibles, no means test and no coverage gaps, and no penalties for signing up in a succeeding year.

I demand congress repeal the faulty Medicare law HR 1 / S 1 passed by congress in Nov 2003.

I demand congress enact single payer universal health insurance for every citizen as minimum coverage.

I demand that congress and the president enact universal vote by mail throughout the 50 states of the United States of America with paper ballots easy to fill out and difficult to change or invalidate by Republican Party officials. This will prevent Republicans from vote suppression by skin color and political party which happened electronically and in person in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I demand that congress and the president enact that civil servants on every state payroll keep track of voter registrations and vote counting of mail in votes in each precinct and not companies such as Choicepoint. We need to take the Republican Party out of the business of keeping track of voter registration and counting votes.

I demand that congress and the president ban the secretary of state in each of the 50 states from engaging in politics especially acting as a campaign official for a presidential campaign.

I demand congress enact legislation protecting private pensions from corporations deliberately declaring bankruptcy or ending pensions outright.

I do this in the spirit of peaceful resistance to a congress that refuses to enact this legislation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then call your local franchise or store that sells products of companies mentioned for boycott and tell them unless the Republican Party enacts the above demands, you will no longer do business with them, so get the CEO of the parent company to get the GOP to accede to these demands. No company wants thousands of people boycotting them espcially getting thousands of phone calls from citizens demanding a progressive agenda enacted or they lose our business.

Tell others to send this mail and to call these companies local franchises. In the case of General Electric call your local store that sells General Electric products.

Posted by: mighty maximus on April 13, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Here Here Seamus!

Thank you for your sensible and thoughtful replies to some of the strangest "logic" I have ever encountered. Cheers to you!

Posted by: indianwife on April 13, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

"define 'normal'."

The opposite of spacebaby.

so, basically, you have absolutely nothing of substance to say here, and you are totally incapable or providing even the most mediocre entertainment as a troll.

i ask you again, what did i say in my original post that was crazy or abnormal?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Spacebaby - I don't understand it either! I gues because we are women when we stand up for our rights that makes us "crazy" or "not normal"......100 years 0 progress. You are absolutely right to state that women need to start standing up for themselves, whether that is deemed unnatural or crazy or whatever else they want to say to try and stop it. LADIES YOUR RIGHTS ARE BEING STOLEN FROM UNDER YOUR NOSES.

Posted by: indianwife on April 13, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

"... nothing of substance ..."

A perfect description of your 10:06AM post

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

A perfect description of your 10:06AM post

and what did i say in that post that was crazy or abnormal?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

The whole thing is crazy and abnormal.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Spacebaby - I don't understand it either! I gues because we are women when we stand up for our rights that makes us "crazy" or "not normal"......100 years 0 progress.

i've heard a million times before -- anger is okay for everyone else, but women have to make nice. if a woman gets angry over bias against women, asshats like this troll call them abnormal, crazy, communist, and often insinuate that they are probable terrorists.

it's all about avoiding what she says. i was immediately trolled for calling out this conscience clause crap for what it is -- a clumsy attempt to provide rhetorical cover for delivering an inferior level of service to female customers by calling it a matter of 'freedom' for business owners and pharmacists.

the 'freedom' of women from harassment at the hands of sexually obsessed creeps like these fundie pharmacists when they try to obtain a legally prescribed medication that is used by the VAST majority of women over the course of their lives is never of importance. in fact, it is of so little importance that it's not worthy of mention and if you bring it up, you're 'crazy' and 'abnormal'.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

The whole thing is crazy and abnormal.

why? you graduated from high school right? you learned how to develop a thesis and provide proof for it, didn't you?

quote specific portions of the post that are crazy and abnormal, and explain in a cogent and rational manner, why they are proof of insanity and abnormality. you'll also need to provide sourced arguments defining what you mean by 'sane' and 'normal', and saying something juvenile like "The opposite of spacebaby" doesn't count.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

yancey:

if you're playing the troll, stop it. address what i said, or stop yanking my chain. btw, i do take it personally when you get all conservatarian and wax nostalgic about the 'rights' of business to discriminate against members of my gender.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

"why?"

It's just a long, stupid, name-calling rant. You're not making an argument. You're not citing any facts or evidence. You're just venting.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

As a pharmacist, just wanted to put my two cents in. I'm personally split on this issue. I think all women should have easy access to birth control (including Plan B), but I don't like the government telling me I must dispense all prescriptions.

Last night I had a women come in with a script for an antibiotic. I told her it would be half an hour (we were busy- all prescritions would take that long). She called me a f***ing c**t. I handed her back her prescriptions and told her to go somewhere else if she can't be civil. She started yelling about how she was going to sue and she would take my job away. I ended up calling the cops on her when she started to physically threaten me. I didn't even raise my voice to her.

I feel for everyone who has had a pharmacist not be willing to sell them Sudafed or birth control, but I won't put up with people calling me names.

Pharmacists are doctors- that's what it says on my degree. Not MDs, but doctors of pharmacy. If I just put pills in bottles according to what the prescriptions said, there would be a lot more dead people. Doctors, and espically nurses, are scary.

I went into pharmacy because I love medicine but couldn't stand the thought of touching some people in places they haven't washed in months. Yuck.

In some states and on federal land pharmacists can prescribe some medications. Just like some doctors refuse to perform abortions, some pharmacists refuse to sell contraceptives. I think they are a bunch of right wing nutjobs, but I respect their right to be right wing nutjobs. They have some choice words about me- I tell people which doctors/clinics to see for Plan B and other meds.

Posted by: Mandy on April 13, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

It's just a long, stupid, name-calling rant. You're not making an argument. You're not citing any facts or evidence. You're just venting.

this from someone whose handle screams TROLL. coward.

none of this answers my question -- what is 'crazy' or 'abnormal' about my post? you keep trying to make 'angry' mean a lot of other things. since your entire contribution to the thread has been:

#1: spacebaby,

You is craaaaaazy lady!

#2: spacebaby, you are anything but normal.

#3: "define 'normal'."

The opposite of spacebaby.

#4 "... nothing of substance ..."

A perfect description of your 10:06AM post

#5 The whole thing is crazy and abnormal. [in answer to my question -- "what was crazy and abnormal about my post"]

this from someone whose handle screams TROLL. coward.

wow, that sure was on topic. i'm sure there's _something_ in there about refusal clauses for pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions for birth control pills, antibiotics for women whose prescriptions came from a women's health clinic that provides abortion services, EC for women who have been raped, vitamins for pregnant women whose prescriptions came from a women's health clinic that provides abortion services, and i guess whatever else a bunch of sanctimonious finger-wagging daddies find objectionable.

every single one of these 'refusals' just happens to somehow be related to women's sexuality (oh, how _convenient_!). it's practically prurient, and it's an all out attack on access to the products and services and that practically every single woman of childbearing age needs. for me personally (you know, someone who has lived and has to live for the forseeable future as a woman of child-bearing age), this whole mess speaks of an agenda that induces the kind of vomit that will eat through a block of lead. just think of me of as the alien, and you'll understand the level of respect i have for this agenda.

i am fed up with the all too common willful blindness to the fact that the refusal clause garbage just always happens to be about refusing _women's_ prescriptions.

now, exactly what did i say that was crazy? i think i just said the same thing i said before with less profanity and anger (see note above about acid and block of lead). if you're whining about my rant, i'd like to ask you to explain why a pharmacist's refusal to fill a prescription for antibiotics for a woman who got it from a women's health clinic that provides abortion services is not rant-worthy? how much 'delay' is politically and socially acceptable to you for a woman to face in filling a prescription for antibiotics?

if she had a surgical abortion, it's actually _really_ important for her to be on antibiotics. the abortion in this case has already happened. the refusal to provide antibiotics to a woman the pharmacist thinks has had an abortion is clearly not about preventing abortions. it's about treating a woman suspected of having an abortion like a pariah in a way that compromises her health. what is 'crazy' or 'abnormal' about profanity, anger, and name-calling in response to this? frankly, i find your lack of a similar reaction appalling.

are women to face a future where their access to health care services for their reproductive organs will be steadily, inexorably relegated to the equivalent of the 'colored' clinic at the edge of town, with bullet-proof windows and escorts to help them fight through crowds of screaming nutballs? this whole refusal clause movement is about funnelling women towards a few, identifiable providers so it's easy for the really crazy people to find them and harass them.

petty harassment from pharmacists is just the start. over ninety percent of american women use birth control over their lives. it's a basic and fundamental means for women to take control of their lives. throwing up obstacles to filling prescriptions for it by throwing them at the mercy of the pharmacist's moral opinion is not a minor inconvenience. again, what's crazy about my reaction to this? at least it was on topic.

your sum total on-topic contribution is your handle 'no pills for spacebaby' and your email no@pills.com. essentially, you're offended by my rant, and your response is to snidely declare me unfit for the right to easy access to birth control. that makes you a troll and no one qualified to lecture anyone about name-calling, meaningless rants.

you certainly didn't elevate the conversation much with your response to a natural, if not rhetorically brilliant response to this maddening, infuriating, willful blindness to the misogynist agenda behind the refusal clause movement. sorry, if you can't see it, but i guess, only your personal experience of life matters. no need to consider anyone else's, especially if it's not exactly like yours, and totally not if they're angry or upset about your total indifference to it.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

"none of this answers my question -- what is 'crazy' or 'abnormal' about my post?"

I already told you, the whole thing. It's just a stupid rant, devoid of any facts or argument, but full of name-calling.

I suggest you read Mandy's thoughtful post above, calm down, educate yourself, think, try to learn some civility, and then you might in a position to actually post something serious on the issue, instead of just vomiting raw anger.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

I suggest you read Mandy's thoughtful post above, calm down, educate yourself, think, try to learn some civility, and then you might in a position to actually post something serious on the issue, instead of just vomiting raw anger.


mandy's thoughtful post includes an unwillingness to serve rude customers. that has absolute nothing to do with the topic, nor does it address the fact that the movement is clearly gunning for customers of one gender only. quit trying to change the subject.

actually post something serious on the issue, instead of just vomiting raw anger.

i love how you like to pretend that i have not already done this, and you are still being an asshole by using that handle. stop lecturing me about respectful civility until you start behaving with the same. you are not in a position to judge anything about my contributions here because you continue to behave like a troll.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

I already told you, the whole thing. It's just a stupid rant, devoid of any facts or argument, but full of name-calling.

if 'the whole thing' is crazy and abnormal, it should be a breeze to pick out specific examples. i'm still waiting on those.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

mandy's thoughtful post includes an unwillingness to serve rude customers.

She didn't say that. She refuses to serve really obnoxious assholes who call her names or threaten her. Seems reasonable to me. Given your behavior in this thread, you seem pretty likely to fit that description yourself.

... the movement is clearly gunning for customers of one gender only. ..."

What movement? What evidence do you have to offer that this alleged movement is "gunning for customers of one gender only?"

i love how you like to pretend that i have not already done this,

You haven't done it. All you've done is call people names ("fucktards" was especially lovely) and make various unsupported accusations.

stop lecturing me about respectful civility until you start behaving with the same.

I'll do that just as soon as you show some sign that you are willing to behave with civility. As long as you continue to behave like a child throwing a temper tantrum, you'll continue to be treated as one.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

mandy's thoughtful post includes an unwillingness to serve rude customers.

She didn't say that. She refuses to serve really obnoxious assholes who call her names or threaten her. Seems reasonable to me. Given your behavior in this thread, you seem pretty likely to fit that description yourself.

do you have a reading comprehension problem?

... the movement is clearly gunning for customers of one gender only. ..."

What movement? What evidence do you have to offer that this alleged movement is "gunning for customers of one gender only?"

i provided a list of examples, and your deliberate choice to ignore them in order to further troll me is not going to make me post them again. either address them or admit that you can't.

i love how you like to pretend that i have not already done this,

You haven't done it. All you've done is call people names ("fucktards" was especially lovely) and make various unsupported accusations.

hi, excuse me, but i am not the topic of this thread. either address the examples offered, or stop this crap trolling. you have singled me out and attacked me personally for expressing a general anger at misogynist pharmacists compromising the health of women, and you're still trying to act like you have a right to demand polite behavior from me. shove it, hypocrite.

stop lecturing until you behave in the manner in which you demand from me. drop your asshole handle, and maybe, just maybe you have a tiny little iota of a right to judge crap all about what i said or how i said it, troll. yes, i cursed. stop acting like you've got a case of the vapors. you've seen a few r-rated movies. get over it.

I'll do that just as soon as you show some sign that you are willing to behave with civility. As long as you continue to behave like a child throwing a temper tantrum, you'll continue to be treated as one.

good god, are you the church lady or something? you are a _TROLL_ who attacked me _PERSONALLY_ and for expressing a general anger at _NO SPECIFIC PERSON_ and you're pretending to lecture me on good behavior? you can't even use your real name, coward. since you appear to forget repeatedly that the topic of this thread is the latest escalation in the refusal clause war. again, cite SPECIFIC PASSAGES where i offer SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of why it is crap and respond to them, not _ME_.

you are not qualified to how civil my response to an attack on women's access to basic health care services vital to their well-being 'should' be. people who support this crap are no better than people who supported racial segregation, and my profanity and anger in response to it is not a childish temper tantrum. it's an appropriate response to a coordinated effort to throw up obstacles to women's access to basic medicine like birth control, vitamins, and antibiotics. notice they were refusing to fill prescriptions from a women's health clinic? they aren't refusing to fill prescriptions for jock itch powder from The Manly Clinic.

drop the prissy schoolmarm act and respond to my arguments because i did make some despite your trolly attempt to pretend that i didn't.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

"i provided a list of examples,"

You didn't provide any evidence.

"stop lecturing"

I told you. I'll stop lecturing you just as soon as you stop behaving like a petulant child. If you have a serious, fact-based argument to make, then make it. All you've done so far is call people names and make various wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

"you can't even use your real name, coward"

So "spacebaby" is your real name, is it, bitch?

Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 13, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

So "spacebaby" is your real name, is it, bitch?

Posted by: Don P on April 13, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

"i provided a list of examples,"

You didn't provide any evidence.

it's your responsibility to follow the controversy. follow kevin's link and you will read about women having *all* prescriptions from a particular women's health clinic refused, including prescriptions for antibiotics and vitamins. if you can't bother to do even that much, get lost. it's not my responsibility to hand-hold you through the basic steps of reading the post and the referred materials. i even went to the other blog and read that comment thread and the article about the pharmacy in question. did you?

you could also read the rest of this thread for more information about other real life examples that have been the subject of previous discussions here about refusal clauses. since you asked, i shall provide links:

Claims established via kevin's post, Professor's B's post (linked in kevin's post), and the article that sparked this discussion:

All prescriptions from a particular women's health clinic because it provides abortion services. End result:

A woman had a prescription for antibiotics refused.
A woman had a prescription for vitamins refused.

Targets: Women. Women who got their prescriptions from a women's health clinic.

this is supporting evidence for my claim that refusal clauses target women simply trying meet their basic health care needs. the pharmacy in question is attempting to drive women away from using the services of a clinic set up specifically to meet their needs.

Birth control pills
EC for a rape victim (and birth control pills and EC for other women as well)

also, check out the first page of results in a google search for pharmacist + refusal + clause -- all links lead to sites assessing their impact on women's access to reproductive health services. if the class of people being denied services were men trying to fill prescriptions to treat health issues related to their reproductive organs, there'd be some discussion about that and it would show up in google's search results.

i guess there must be some conspiracy to hide the fact that the these refusal clauses are having a noticable impact on men's ability to get their prescriptions filled.

"stop lecturing"

I told you. I'll stop lecturing you just as soon as you stop behaving like a petulant child. If you have a serious, fact-based argument to make, then make it. All you've done so far is call people names and make various wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

you, as a proven troll, are no authority on what is or is not a serious, fact-based argument. you started your 'argument' by personally attacking me because your dainty little eyes couldn't handle profanity on a comment thread at a high traffic politics blog. (get out much?) contrary to your accusations, i didn't single out any specific person for harassment. _you_ did.

you're the one who claimed that creative profanity is 'insane' and 'abnormal'. talk about unsubstantiated accusations and name-calling. as if people who use the word 'fuckwit' are magically transformed into mad and horrific beasts, fit only to be confined in an institution for the mentally deranged and certainly to be deprived of birth control pills if female.

"you can't even use your real name, coward"

So "spacebaby" is your real name ...

it's the handle i use to post here. i'm using my real email address. because i have participated in threads on various incarnations of kevin drum's blog since he was on blogspot, it counts as my 'real name' as opposed to your chosen handle and fake email address which mark _you_ as a troll.

... is it, bitch?

you've been absolutely _dying_ to say that haven't you? you just couldn't stop yourself. i would have to say that your inability to refrain from calling me by a derogatory term for women means you lose! bye bye.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Is everyone here really that naive. Pharmacists have always been evil. Why if it wasn't for George Bailey they would be posioning liberal kids across the country.

Posted by: Clarence on April 14, 2006 at 5:06 AM | PERMALINK

hi, Don P, aka 'Charlie.' you are such a chickenshit. now you're stealing the real handles of people who USED to post here?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

btw, yancey, if you're reading, i really *apologize* for mistaking this worthless sack of shit for you. once i realized that the nastiness was real and not a joke i realized that it wasn't you.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

"no pills for spacebaby" = real Don P
"Don P" = (not Charley this time) fake Don P busting real Don P posting as "no pills for spacebaby"

notice how he shut up after he was outed as the original Don P??????

Posted by: donnybrook on April 14, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

maybe you're right. but i never saw Don P act like this until recently. i know i haven't participated much in the threads here over the last 6 months, so he may have actually changed dramatically. however, this behavior reminds me distinctly of Charlie's style.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"follow kevin's link and you will read about women having *all* prescriptions from a particular women's health clinic refused, including prescriptions for antibiotics and vitamins."

A single instance of a woman or women being denied abortion-related drugs at a single clinic is not evidence of a "movement" that is "gunning for customers of one gender only."

"you, as a proven troll, ... "

You, as a proven bitch who consistently behaves like a child throwing a temper tantrum, have not produced one iota of evidence to support your wild accusations.

"ou're the one who claimed that creative profanity is 'insane' and 'abnormal'."

Your posts are insane and abnormal.


Posted by: no pills for spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

spacebaby = real Don P

Posted by: Charlie on April 14, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

seems like i struck a nerve, charlie. getting a little psychotic these days, i see. i hope you can find a pharmacy where they don't object to filling prescriptions for your meds.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

You, as a proven bitch who consistently behaves like a child throwing a temper tantrum, have not produced one iota of evidence to support your wild accusations.

love them double standards, do ya? did the latest vagina you were assigned to police slip past ya for an unauthorized, contracepted orgasm or something? what crawled up your butt and died?

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

A single instance of a woman or women being denied abortion-related drugs at a single clinic is not evidence of a "movement" that is "gunning for customers of one gender only."

prescriptions for women from a women's health clinic were refused. that is more than one instance, and it is clearly targeted at women. men don't usually go to WOMEN'S health clinics for medical care. you are absolutely incapable of engaging in a honest debate. you lie, you ignore, you deliberately misread, and you distort. and you can't handle a heated discussion without resorting to derogatory terms for women.

you've been acting like 4 year old for the entire thread, starting with the the equivalent of "Well, you're a poopyhead!" in response to my rant. trolls don't get to lecture about polite, civil, mature discussion.

Posted by: spacebaby on April 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly